linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/18] arm64: apple: Add initial Mac Mini 2020 (M1) devicetree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YCPXoEKJQyVFdOHv@atomide.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:54:56 +0200
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     Daniel Palmer <daniel@...f.com>
Cc:     Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
        SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] arm64: apple: Add initial Mac Mini 2020 (M1)
 devicetree

* Daniel Palmer <daniel@...f.com> [210210 12:24]:
> Hi Hector,
> 
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 20:49, Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st> wrote:
> 
> > > Yeah, just don't use an imaginary dummy index for the reg. Use a real
> > > register offset from a clock controller instance base, and a register
> > > bit offset too if needed.
> >
> > I mean for fixed input clocks without any particular numbering, or for
> > temporary fake clocks while we figure out the clock controller. Once a
> > real clock controller is involved, if there are hardware indexes
> > involved that are consistent then of course I'll use those in some way
> > that makes sense.
> 
> This exact problem exists for MStar/SigmaStar too.
> As it stands there is no documentation to show what the actual clock
> tree looks like so everything is guess and I need to come up with numbers.
> I'm interested to see what the solution to this is as it will come up again
> when mainlining chips without documentation.
> 
> 
> > The purpose of the clock in this particular case is just to make the
> > uart driver work, since it wants to know its reference clock; there is
> > work to be done here to figure out the real clock tree
> 
> FWIW arm/boot/dts/mstar-v7.dtsi has the same issue: Needs uart,
> has no uart clock. In that instance the uart clock setup by u-boot
> is passed to the uart driver as a property instead of creating a fake
> clock.

Using more local dts nodes for the fixed clocks might help a bit with
the dummy numbering problem but is still not a nice solution.

How about using node names like "clock-foo" for the fixed clocks?
This would be along what we do for with regulator names.

Rob and Stephen might have some better suggestions here.

Regards,

Tony